Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXX

[Spiryt]

Yes. You would probably end up with something similar to its more battlefield worthy precursers. So like various 15th and 16th century Spanish swords of similar shape. Their main drawback in comparison is weight, so if that is not an issue...

"Typical" rapiers of 16th and 17th century usually weren't really particularly light. They had narrow, but pretty stout and obviously long blades, so could easily end up well over 3 pounds, even close to 4.

Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well. Though it obviously depends on exact rapier blade in question.

[Satinavian]

"Typical" rapiers of 16th and 17th century usually weren't really particularly light. They had narrow, but pretty stout and obviously long blades, so could easily end up well over 3 pounds, even close to 4.

Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well. Though it obviously depends on exact rapier blade in question.

I know, but the rapier still basically means "dress sword" and is meant to a sword for civillian everyday use and self defense that is a lighter variant of the contemporary military sword and more comfortable to walk around with. The lines are obviously quite blurry as the Spanish did not invent it as a new category but called the swords people used this way espada ropera which later evolved into rapier as the name for the more common designs.

Sure, they are heavy and unwieldy compared to many other weapons of similar purpose, especially later ones, but not compared to their military equivalents which tented to be better at cutting and thus more versatile.

Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well.

Since the question contains "weight is not an issue" i treat it as "How could a rapier be improved if you had some super light fantasy material that is otherwise like steel".

[Lemmy]

Sorry, I guess i was a bit vague in my question (I do not know much about swords).

Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

They do have access to some fantastic materials just like most other races in the setting, but that tends to be the exception, and usually their weapons are made of high quality, but non-magical steel.

I figured that maybe having the blades be wider (they can't be much longer due to practicality) would allow for a smoother, more gradual profile taper, therefore making it better for slashing, while still keeping it really good at piercing (I assume you could also give it a smoother "pointification" - i'm not sure how to describe this)

Since the question contains "weight is not an issue" i treat it as "How could a rapier be improved if you had some super light fantasy material that is otherwise like steel".

I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but it's more about the typical wielders being *really* strong, rather than the material being particularly light.

BTW, thank you all for all your replies. I really appreciate it!

[halfeye]

Sorry, I guess i was a bit vague in my question (I do not know much about swords).

Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

They do have access to some fantastic materials just like most other races in the setting, but that tends to be the exception, and usually their weapons are made of high quality, but non-magical steel.

I figured that maybe having the blades be wider (they can't be much longer due to practicality) would allow for a smoother, more gradual profile taper, therefore making it better for slashing, while still keeping it really good at piercing (I assume you could also give it a smoother transition into its point too - i'm not sure how to describe this)


I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but it's more about the typical wielders being *really* strong, rather than the material being particularly light.

BTW, thank you all for all your replies. I really appreciate it!

If they are bigger and stronger, they might go for even longer rapiers?

[Lemmy]

If they are bigger and stronger, they might go for even longer rapiers?

I thought about that, but they aren't considerably larger than humans (a few inches taller, on average), and they still wield the weapon in civilian life, so making it even longer might be an issue for everyday practicality.

Of, course... It doesn't have to be 100% realistic. I'm just trying to make it make sense once people read about their culture.

[Sneak Dog]

Mind that weight is always a concern. Even if the wielders are stronger, using strength is tiring and combat is plenty tiring without swinging a bunch of steel about. So you want your weapons to be as light as possible. To use minimal effort for maximum effect. If every swing takes active exertion, you are unlikely to last beyond two enemies.
With increased strength they'll probably have more leeway, so they'd go as much heavier as gives them concrete advantages. Not adding weight for weight's sake or options that are unlikely to matter. There's already been excellent suggestions as to what those changes would be before me by people more familiar with rapiers.

[Spiryt]

I know, but the rapier still basically means "dress sword" and is meant to a sword for civillian everyday use and self defense that is a lighter variant of the contemporary military sword and more comfortable to walk around with. The lines are obviously quite blurry as the Spanish did not invent it as a new category but called the swords people used this way espada ropera which later evolved into rapier as the name for the more common designs.

My point is that rapiers weren't lighter than military swords (one handed ones at least). Both would fall between 2 and 3 pounds, while some were heavier. And not easier to carry either, since they were generally much longer. Military one handed/arming swords would generally be around 1 meter long, or even shorter, while rapier would quite often exceed 120cm

Rapiers were pretty much swords optimized for one on one duel while being still portable enough to carry on your belt.

Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

With roughly diamond shaped cross section, increasing thickness by 40% and width by 20% would increase cross-sectional area, and thus weigh by more than 60%.

So basically one idea would be to use heavy, but very stiff, and robust rapiers, which is always good thing, but rapiers usually had to compromise the stiffness to make long, thin blade light enough.

[Lemmy]

Mind that weight is always a concern. Even if the wielders are stronger, using strength is tiring and combat is plenty tiring without swinging a bunch of steel about. So you want your weapons to be as light as possible. To use minimal effort for maximum effect. If every swing takes active exertion, you are unlikely to last beyond two enemies.
With increased strength they'll probably have more leeway, so they'd go as much heavier as gives them concrete advantages. Not adding weight for weight's sake or options that are unlikely to matter. There's already been excellent suggestions as to what those changes would be before me by people more familiar with rapiers.

True. But I want to give them something unique and different, to emphasize that aspect of their culture (they're strong and like dueling)... I was planning to have a human character point out that the rapier these people are so heavy that most humanoid races can't use them effectively, unless they're exceptional individuals.

With roughly diamond shaped cross section, increasing thickness by 40% and width by 20% would increase cross-sectional area, and thus weigh by more than 60%.

So basically one idea would be to use heavy, but very stiff, and robust rapiers, which is always good thing, but rapiers usually had to compromise the stiffness to make long, thin blade light enough.

Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

[Mike_G]

True. But I want to give them something unique and different, to emphasize that aspect of their culture (they're strong and like dueling)... I was planning to have a human character point out that the rapier these people are so heavy that most humanoid races can't use them effectively, unless they're exceptional individuals.



Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

A blade that is thinner in one plane ( like flatter if you look at the edge) and broader if you look at the flat will cut better. A more acute angle of the edge and less drag, as well as more mass behind the edge, all help it cut better.

But, a flatter blade won't be as stiff, so it may bend when used in the thrust, especially against heavy clothing or any armor, or even against a rib or a belt or something. So making a better cutter usually makes a worse thruster.

The spadroon was an attempt to make the thrust- centric smallsword more able to cut, but it wound up being mediocre at both things, which is why many officers swapped it out for a saber.

All this said, many rapiers could cut. They were more optimized to thrust, but there is huge variation in historical blades. I think making one a bit broader and heavier might make sense for a strong user. maybe give it more cutting damage but have a penalty to use it if your strength isn't high. This is an RPG after all.

[Spiryt]

Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

Yeah, extra width makes more acute angle possible, adds stiffness/rigidity in the plane of the cut, adds more mass there, et cetera.

As mentioned though, it kinda depends what do you want to call a rapier.

Some people, both in period and today would probably call this a rapier:

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/4396639...ype=flashlight

While it's hard to tell just by such vague image, it looks like it would have decent enough cutting ability.


While other people would reserve word "rapier" for a sword with blade geometry, weight distribution, pivot point etc. that make it very unsuitable for any serious cutting. Wrong geometry, could be heavy, as mentioned above, but with weight concentrated towards the hilt and hand, etc.

Matt Easton had recently made some videos tackling this problem, among other things. Like when is something a "rapier".

Third video also touches on flexibility of the rapier, which is going to be pretty closely tied to weigh, and why and when would somebody want more rigid rapier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFw3dcMpJ9Q&t=248s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXE4HK-wk5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qeZPNYVNJQ

[fusilier]

All this said, many rapiers could cut. They were more optimized to thrust, but there is huge variation in historical blades. I think making one a bit broader and heavier might make sense for a strong user. maybe give it more cutting damage but have a penalty to use it if your strength isn't high. This is an RPG after all.

There's a type of sword referred to as a "cut-and-thrust" sword, that's broader (but shorter) than a rapier. A contemporary of the early rapiers (16th-17th centuries), it was kind of the standard military sword of the time. Maybe a longer cut-and-thrust sword would serve the OP's requirements?

Sword nomenclature isn't always clear -- I think it's also referred to as a broad sword??

[fusilier]

. . .

As mentioned though, it kinda depends what do you want to call a rapier.

Some people, both in period and today would probably call this a rapier:

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/4396639...ype=flashlight

While it's hard to tell just by such vague image, it looks like it would have decent enough cutting ability.


. . . .

That's what I would call a cut-and-thrust sword, but sword nomenclature is a huge can of worms . . . :-(

[Lemmy]

Thank you for all the replies. I truly appreciate it. They really helped me with the world-building for my setting.

[Maat Mons]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

[fusilier]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

A quick look at my mid-19th century manuals didn't bring up any hard numbers. For siege batteries the embrasure went from about two feet wide to 12 feet wide -- but that seems to have been standard regardless of the thickness of the parapet, which in fieldworks could be very thick (10-12 feet was considered appropriate when dealing with a 12-pounder field gun, for siege operations it could be even thicker).

The drawings themselves show something with a fairly narrow field of fire, by eyeball I would say maybe as much as 15 degrees traverse to either side (for a total of 30 deg.).

For masonry works, where the gun was located inside of a casemate (as in a seacoast fortress), it looks like it could be significantly wider, as the wall isn't as thick -- but I hesitate to make any hard claims based on drawings that might be more representational, rather than schematic. Also by the mid-nineteenth century there were a variety of embrasures used in such casemates.

Finally, I would note that in a work on field fortifications, in a discussion about the angles between walls, they state that angles of "reentry" should not be less than 90 degrees, nor much more than 100 degrees, as beyond 100 degrees it would be difficult to sweep the wall with fire. Which would imply that 10 or so degrees was the expected traverse (from normal). (Perhaps a little more to allow the embrasure to be some distance from the angle).

[Gnoman]

Note that making the field of fire better means making the hole in the wall bigger, and that can be a critical weakness in the fortification. For a couple of reasons, a single bigger hole is more vulnerable than two spaced-out smaller holes, even if the combined area of the smaller holes is larger.

[Pauly]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

It depends a bit on things like if it was a flat wall or a curves wall, the thickness of the wall and the size of the carriage.

For hand guns or bows 120 degrees is fairly standard.
For pre-Victorian artillery about 90 degrees was normal, although more was reasonably possible with skilled engineers making the fort. Improvised or hastily built places commonly had less.
With improved engineering and machinery Victorian era and later fortresses potentially could have much wider arcs of fire.

For a number of reasons pre-Victorian forts preferred to have a number of different firing positions to which the artillery could be moved to rather building firing positions for each cannon with very wide arcs of fire. It was very common for forts to have more firing positions than cannon.

[Maat Mons]

I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment? It seems that it could complicate maintenance. Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.

[Unoriginal]

I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Mail skirts weren't a thing. Even if they had just enough metal to make a skirt and no more, they'd cover a different place. Not getting your legs be slashed is nice, not letting your head, torso or belly be slashed is better.

Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing, either, because while mail prevents cuts you'd still get the strike's blunt force in your arm, and that would still be a big problem. So in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be padded armor (like a gambeson) with mail on top of the arm padding.

You may also be thinking of someone wearing a mail haubert with a cloth vestment on the torso, on top of the haubert, which can give the impression of mail sleeves and skirt.

Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment?

The disadvantage is that you have the part of your shoulders the closest to your neck without mail to protect it.

Not a winning move.

It seems that it could complicate maintenance.

Nah, it wouldn't. If anything it'd be easier to maintain (even if you'd need to do it far more frequently than if it was all mail).

Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.

That really wouldn't be a concern. In any situation where adjusting mail is needed and possible, the tiny bit of extra work would more than make up for all the inconveniences of having buckles.

[Spiryt]

Mail skirts weren't a thing. Even if they had just enough metal to make a skirt and no more, they'd cover a different place. Not getting your legs be slashed is nice, not letting your head, torso or belly be slashed is better.

Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing, either, because while mail prevents cuts you'd still get the strike's blunt force in your arm, and that would still be a big problem. So in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be padded armor (like a gambeson) with mail on top of the arm padding.

You may also be thinking of someone wearing a mail haubert with a cloth vestment on the torso, on top of the haubert, which can give the impression of mail sleeves and skirt.

Mail skirt were very much a thing, in fact very popular one.

While armoring only waist and upper legs may not "make sense", it's not how they were used though, - they were mainly used to supplement some kind of plate torso protection.

Even with very elaborate plate armor, it was pretty much impossible to fully protect the groin for example, so some kind of brayete was almost always used, if wearer had means, of course.

But full mail skirt was used even pretty late on, it could be probably heavy and protective, while allowing greater movement of legs, without lots of buckles and straps.

Tower of London inventory from 1338 alone mentions 208 pairs of mail sleeves and skirts! They were probably worn as limb protection, while torso was supposed to be protected by some kind of coat of plates.

As well as lots of "paunces" in most of the knows records. Probably the word meant some kind of skirt or trousers, or brayette like garment in this context.

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919...esis_final.pdf


Here are depictions like it could look like:

Spoiler

Show

Generally we can see both "full skirts" and some front only apron like garments as well.

Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing,

Extremely popular in 16th century.

I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment? It seems that it could complicate maintenance. Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.

Generally we don't have nearly enough artifacts and depictions preserved to form lots of opinions, but there's no real reason why they shouldn't be.

Although a lot of skirt seem to be strapped to the belt or breastplate, in on way or another.

This gentleman has few good videos about the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qutBmwJCV4Q

This famous artwork seems to be showing mail voiders/sleeves in form of essentially very reduced shirt.



And skirt seems to be attached to the girdle/waist in some way.

[Unoriginal]

Mail skirt were very much a thing, in fact very popular one.

While armoring only waist and upper legs may not "make sense", it's not how they were used though, - they were mainly used to supplement some kind of plate torso protection.

Even with very elaborate plate armor, it was pretty much impossible to fully protect the groin for example, so some kind of brayete was almost always used, if wearer had means, of course.

But full mail skirt was used even pretty late on, it could be probably heavy and protective, while allowing greater movement of legs, without lots of buckles and straps.

Tower of London inventory from 1338 alone mentions 208 pairs of mail sleeves and skirts! They were probably worn as limb protection, while torso was supposed to be protected by some kind of coat of plates.

As well as lots of "paunces" in most of the knows records. Probably the word meant some kind of skirt or trousers, or brayette like garment in this context.

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919...esis_final.pdf


Here are depictions like it could look like:

Spoiler

Show

Generally we can see both "full skirts" and some front only apron like garments as well.





Extremely popular in 16th century.

I admit saying mail skirts were never a thing was an overstatement (I also admit I've never seen those refered as skirts before today), but my point is that you don't have mail connected to regular cloth and call it a day.

The order of protection priority in combat armor is, pretty consistantly through humankind, as follow:

1.Torso (minimum upper torso)
2. Head
3. Arms
4. Legs

With some rare cases of prioritizing the head over the torso.

Furthermore, I reiterate that mail is worn above padded armor for a good reason. Several, in facts, including simple comfort.


So you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit.

The illustrations you've posted confirm that, as the metal is over padded armor, and connecting to a belt/girdle/plastron is not the same as "cloth".

But it is true I was not precise enough in my statement.

[Spiryt]

I admit saying mail skirts were never a thing was an overstatement (I also admit I've never seen those refered as skirts before today), but my point is that you don't have mail connected to regular cloth and call it a day.

The order of protection priority in combat armor is, pretty consistantly through humankind, as follow:

1.Torso (minimum upper torso)
2. Head
3. Arms
4. Legs

In late 13th century and 14th century Europe we can very often see leg armor being prioritized over the arms.

Pretty much only for mounted fighters, obviously, because it indeed makes way less sense for infantry - but throughout most of the history, in most places, full armor and mounted fighting usually went hand in hand.

Furthermore, I reiterate that mail is worn above padded armor for a good reason. Several, in facts, including simple comfort.


So you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit.

The illustrations you've posted confirm that, as the metal is over padded armor, and connecting to a belt/girdle/plastron is not the same as "cloth".

But it is true I was not precise enough in my statement.

In some places, times and context mail was indeed being worn over padding, but quite often it would be not.

We have plenty detailed mentions of arms being required, or provided, with no mentions of padding.

There's also plenty of works of art rather clearly depicting mail worn over quite ordinary clothing.

There's nothing about this picture that suggest that the garment is heavily padded really.

There are, fortunately, quite a few mail sleeves with extant cloth preserved too, and it's not really armor cloth.

There are written sources mentioning sewing mail to plain ol' doublets.

"How man shall be armed" from around 1460 rather clearly describes mail being sewn to plain fustian, lined with satin. No mention of padding.

Cloth and strings must be all "strong", but there's no mention of being padded of made into any sort of cloth armor in general.

He schal have no schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean lyned with satene cutte ful of hoolis . the dowbelet muste be strongeli boūdē there the poyntis muste be seete aboute the greet of the arme . and the b ste (sic) before and behynde and the gussetis of mayle muste be sowed un to the dowbelet in the bought of the arme . and unndir the arme the armynge poyntis muste be made of fyne twyne such as men make stryngis for crossebowes and they [f. 123] muste be trussid small and poyntid as poyntis. Also they muste be wexid with cordeweneris coode . and than they woll neythir recche nor breke Also a payr' hosyn̄ of stamyn sengill and a peyre of shorte bulwerkis of thynne blanket to put aboute hus kneys for chawfynge of his lighernes Also a payre of shone of thikke cordewene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde thre knottis up on a corde and thre coordis muste be faste sowid un to the hele of the shoo and fyne cordis in the mydill of the soole of the same shoo and that ther be betwene the frettis of the heele and the frettis of the myddill of the shoo the space of thre fyngris.

Nice period illustration of such garment too, and with source being translated into more modern English


There's doublet of Eugene of Savoy, where mail sleeves are sewn to doublet that's just swede.


https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/7881368075708777/

Generally the idea that mail MUST be padded is very prevaling trope, but it seems very far from truth.

If someone was wearing some kind of plate armor in particular, then mail voiders, sleeves and skirts would be obviously used to defend the places that cannot be defended with plate while providing good mobility at the same time.

Adding thick padding at and around the armpits in particular isn't very realistic.

At the same time, those aren't spots likely to be hit with great blunt impacts, protection against points would be most important.



If we add the civilian context, where impact weapons are less likely to happen in general, and walking around in padding whole day is out of question, were' going to see even more mail sewn to normal clothing.


This whole thread has many convincing images, including, apparently, authentic period mail

[Unoriginal]

In late 13th century and 14th century Europe we can very often see leg armor being prioritized over the arms.

Pretty much only for mounted fighters, obviously

I'll grant you that point, but even then torso and head were prioritized.

There are written sources mentioning sewing mail to plain ol' doublets.

"How man shall be armed" from around 1460 rather clearly describes mail being sewn to plain fustian, lined with satin. No mention of padding.

Cloth and strings must be all "strong", but there's no mention of being padded of made into any sort of cloth armor in general.



Nice period illustration of such garment too, and with source being translated into more modern English

"How man shall be armed" refers to a doublet, as in an armed doublet, or aketon, or arming coat, or gambeson:

A kind of arming coat worn during the 13th - 15th century both as a complete armour unto itself and as padding for additional armour worn over the top. They were generally quilted, either sewn or stuffed with linen, tow or even grass. Most of the illustrations from the 14th century show many buttons or laces up the front, and there are a few examples that feature a high collar to assist in the defense of the neck. 14th century Aketons were generally cut wide around the arm holes in a manner that followed the line of the breastplate or cuirass. These extra-large arm-holes served to grant complete mobility for a full range of arm motion while providing a last-ditch defense of the area under the arm. I can find no evidence of Aketons ever being open under the arm, though this is a common SCA style. See also the pourpoint, a garment worn under the arming coat useful for attaching the laces for the attachment of a leg harness.

"A doublet made of fustian lined with satin" is literally the description of a padded armor.

Generally the idea that mail MUST be padded is very prevaling trope, but it seems very far from truth.

All armor needs padding to be effective/wearable.

Obviously it's not the same level of padding if you're wearing mail above it than if the layers of cloth are the only thing between you and death.

If someone was wearing some kind of plate armor in particular, then mail voiders, sleeves and skirts would be obviously used to defend the places that cannot be defended with plate while providing good mobility at the same time.

Adding thick padding at and around the armpits in particular isn't very realistic.

First, the bits of mail used to protect the articulations of plate armor is not the same as when mail is the main form of armor.

Second, plate armor was worn above padding.

If we add the civilian context, where impact weapons are less likely to happen in general, and walking around in padding whole day is out of question, were' going to see even more mail sewn to normal clothing.

I think you're greatly overestimating the kind of padding that is discussed here.

Also, if it's in civilian context and day-to-day wear, then it's not armor, it's fashion.

[Maat Mons]

The words I chose to describe my question may not have been the best. I was figuring on the mail in question being used in conjunction with some sort of cuirass. Most especially, this question came to my mind while looking at armor to be used in conjunction with brigandine.

I’m not actually 100% sure that mail made to be worn with brigandine actually would have omitted the parts of the mail that would also be covered by the brigandine. As far as I can tell, at least in certain time periods, it would in fact have been common to put on a full mail shirt (or whatever it was called) underneath brigandine. I gather though, that it eventually became common to omit parts of chainmail that would be covered by a breastplate and backplate combo, and the same principle would seem to apply equally well to brigandine.

When I mention the mail being attached to cloth garments, I was actually meaning to lump two different things together. One of those things was attaching the mail to a gambeson or arming doublet. Maybe “cloth garment” isn’t an accurate way to describe that. The other was attaching the mail to cloth that served strictly to keep it in place. Though there would be nothing stopping you from wearing a gambeson or arming doublet underneath that, like this guy.

[Spiryt]

"A doublet made of fustian lined with satin" is literally the description of a padded armor.

If fustian lined with satin counts as "padded armor" then vast majority of stuff people were wearing everyday would count too. Some heavier cloth with more delcate lining would be extremely common everyday wear in 15th century and beyond.

So I'm bit confused about your statements now.

You claimed that you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit. And now that normal outfit can count as padding.

"How man shall be armed" refers to a doublet, as in an armed doublet, or aketon, or arming coat, or gambeson:

It's certainly not gambeson or aketon, because there's no mention of any padding or significant amount of layers. So it is an arming coat, yes, but not really armor in itself, or padding.

All armor needs padding to be effective/wearable.

Again, it doesn't seem that people actually wearing armor in the past would agree. Plenty of indications that they were often, indeed wearing just some cloth.

Padding would make it more comfortable and more effective, against some trauma, but armor won't magically stop workin

Also, if it's in civilian context and day-to-day wear, then it's not armor, it's fashion.

How is armor being worn not an armor

Civilian life was often very violent, that's why people were wearing armor in civilian ones, even when it was usually frowned upon. Mail in particular could be worn openly or as hidden armor.

George Silver recommended making sure that your enemy doesn't discover your privy coat.

I’m not actually 100% sure that mail made to be worn with brigandine actually would have omitted the parts of the mail that would also be covered by the brigandine.

If they are made to be worn together, then it's absolutely no reason to omit anything.

The whole point of the mail voiders/sleeves was to cover the gaps.

If one was wearing some mismatched items, say, something that came from looting, it could definitely happen.

Most of mail sleeves seem to run pretty "deep" though, all the way to the neck and lower ribs sometimes. Probably precisely to give some margin of error, even if in effect armor was doubled in some areas.


It probably helped if someone immobilized you in some way and tried to pry some sword or dagger inside your breastplate, for example. Should mail end right at the border of other defense, one could be vulnerable to such trick.

[Unoriginal]

If fustian lined with satin counts as "padded armor" then vast majority of stuff people were wearing everyday would count too. Some heavier cloth with more delcate lining

There has been years of linguistic and cultural shifts, even without accounting for the translation in current English. What was considered "fustian lined with satin" back then is not what we would describe as "fustian lined with satin" in the year 2024.


You can read military historian Bret Devereaux's rather amazing blog, if you don't believe me.

In particular, in his Punching Through Some Armor Myths article, he directly states:

Alright, first, what do I mean by textile defense? A gambeson (also called a padded jack, arming doublet or aketon and possibly the same as the Roman subarmalis) formed the base layer of effectively all medieval armor.

He then develop the topic, before moving to the other layers of the armor.

[Maat Mons]

Some follow up questions.

It was mentioned that what I call mail skirts are also known by a different name. What would that name be?

I can find many examples of gambesons having what I’d call voiders directly attached to them. That is to say, mail that covers parts of the arm that would be left exposed by some styles of plate armor for the arms. Would it be unusual for a gambeson to have what I’d call mail sleeves directly attached? I mean, by mail sleeves, something that goes all the way around the arm, which could serve as reasonable protection for the arms by itself, without the need for any additional form of armoring on the arms.

When what I call mail skirts were used in conjunction with gambesons, what length of gambesons would be typical? Would the gambeson normally extend down approximately as far as the mail skirt? Would it have been uncommon to wear a mail skirt in conjunction with a gambeson that doesn’t extend below the waist?

For gambesons that extend significantly below the waist, would it have been unusual to attach mail directly to the lower portion of the gambeson? I’m imagining this would provide much of the same protection as wearing a mail skirt over the gambeson, though it would have a split running down the center of the front that the mail skirt wouldn’t.

Does the style of closure of a gambeson matter? It seems like buckles could get driven into the wearer in an uncomfortable fashion from the force of blows delivered to the cuirass worn over them. On the other hand, “uncomfortable” probably would be an accurate description of being hit by a solid attack regardless. Would this be a consideration when selecting a gambeson?

[Unoriginal]

I can find many examples of gambesons having what I’d call voiders directly attached to them. That is to say, mail that covers parts of the arm that would be left exposed by some styles of plate armor for the arms. Would it be unusual for a gambeson to have what I’d call mail sleeves directly attached?

Nope, that would be common.

When what I call mail skirts were used in conjunction with gambesons, what length of gambesons would be typical? Would the gambeson normally extend down approximately as far as the mail skirt?

Yes, it would be approximately as long as the mail. Sometime longer if the person couldn't afford much mail.

Would it have been uncommon to wear a mail skirt in conjunction with a gambeson that doesn’t extend below the waist?

It wouldn't have just been uncommon, it would have been *nightmarish*.

Wearing mail without padding is like paying a lot of money to get encased into a dull, flexible cheese grater.

And a skirt goes above the groin region.

For gambesons that extend significantly below the waist, would it have been unusual to attach mail directly to the lower portion of the gambeson?

Would have been far from unusual.

Does the style of closure of a gambeson matter? It seems like buckles could get driven into the wearer in an uncomfortable fashion from the force of blows delivered to the cuirass worn over them. On the other hand, “uncomfortable” probably would be an accurate description of being hit by a solid attack regardless. Would this be a consideration when selecting a gambeson?

Well the gambeson would have been built so that whatever the style of closure chosen, there would be the appropriate padding between the person and the closure system, be it buckles or anything else.

Buckles to close the gambeson and maintain it on the wearer is several order of magnitudes easier to manage than buckles on the shoulders to keep the sleeves attached.

Especially when there will be a cuirasse over said buckles, and buckles can be made pretty flat.

[Maat Mons]

It’s good to know that sewing mail to a gambeson wasn’t as limited as I thought it might be. It does seem much more convenient to just put on a gambeson and have all the bits of mail already in place, rather than put on the gambeson and still have to put on several bits of mail in addition.

[VonKaiserstein]

It's not precisely the same concept, but if you go looking for mirror armor or char aina examples, you'll find plates, often held to other plates by mail. Often the mail, particularly the gloves, is attached to fabric as well. Definitely worth looking into, if you're after blended mail and plate armors.